Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past

[zionslight]

Funny, no I have been a member all my life.  I went to the temple every week for two years for personal reasons concerning my husband who committed adultery, so I know how it feels, personally and I learned how the Lord felt about the men that do this to their wives.  But during this, I still absolutely believed Joseph Smith was the originator of polygamy.

 

I even had a man who had a death experience speak to me.  He was shown the table of the Lord, he had an experience like Sarah Monet, Lance Richardson, "Spencer" in Visions of Glory, etc.  He was a rancher and dairy farmer and "died" of cancer.  He made a covenant with the angel with him that nothing else might die for him to live, and was shown about the Word of Wisdom and meat.  I also ate lots of meat at this time, so no, i did not make this up.  Personally, he told me and others throughout his life that he met Joseph Smith and Emma, and that Joseph told him that he never had sexual relations outside of Emma.

 

At this time I did not care about that, I did care about my lack of care toward God's creations and my health, and knew that what he experienced was real and I better start to study the scriptures about my meat eating, and my health.  I did not think about the other.

 

I went through a divorce, and went through a startling discovery that certain men started to "claim" me as their spiritual wife.  It was how I started to learn the language of the Lord, the "beginning to wax in iniquity". Because I was sought after, no joke, and there were a handful of good LDS men, some with wives, others without that knew I was their wife, and that this had happened before.

 

It could not all be true, and that is when I was led down this path.  I am a researcher, I made a covenant years ago, when my children were young that I would "waste and wear away my life to bring to light hidden things of darkness", not realizing that the average member could not show you a conspiracy to save their lives, literally, which took me down the path to really understand the scriptures and things coming.

 

I kept finding one thing that bothered me.  On sites, in books it would talk about Joseph being an "enigma" that he spoke one thing and supposedly lived another.  They I learned about plainness, period.  In a nutshell.  I came to study and find out, yes, according to evidence, DNA evidence the Book of Mormon was more than just words, and that Joseph Smith had no other descendants other than with Emma.  This was startling, This was also years ago.

 

The Lord knew my heart and what I went through, gave me an advantage... to some of you men, it may not be the case for you are not sharing your bed with another man, would be a different story. And the Lord is no respector of persons.  It caused SO much grief, more than you know unless you do read the 19th wife, other accounts, it is horrifying.

 

Then someone will say, well done right, then you don't get this.  The Lord says it can not be done right here.  The history of our church with this, with Blacks and the Priesthood, and other mistakes is case in point.  Also the Lord's warning to us all through the scriptures, that we will be thinking we are great, building up our church's when we are debased and all is taken because we have become so part of the world, with all His truths, and have not received the higher priesthood spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

 

Back to me going to the temple, I did not know this but the Lord does answer real intent.  Sometime I may share what happened that gave me cause to believe that the Lord DOES want us to live these higher principles, which is not debasing ourselves, but living to see Him, this is the Doctrine, Christ, that He is now appearing to people, that we have a job to do, that we must have a tipping point to establish Zion, or we will be like those in Joseph's time.  

 

The D&C opens that we have changed His ordinances, it is also a book of warning, and instructions, and condemning us for not living the truths, seeing Christ, and that it is because of our vanity and our unbelief.

 

I went to Nauvoo.  And I did not even know what the RLDS church was until AFTER I knew the doctrine of polygamy was wrong, and then I was led to understand why this church existed at the beginning.  We are so prideful thinking we had all the knowledge and messed up, some of these original people that stayed in Nauvoo, and over there was the Lord's plan to bring us back, it certainly is not Salt Lake City.  We had to scatter, to gather.

 

Hope that makes me a little more personable.

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh, it wasn't always just Aaronic (Alma 13 makes that VERY clear).  But Jacob 4:5 makes it clear they were operating under the Mosaic (Aaronic) authority at that time:

 

 

So yes, it was probably a Mosaic temple with Jacob as High Priest.

What then do you do with strong claims that the Book of Mormon culture had the endowment from beginning to end?  And was Father Lehi a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood?  Nephi?

 

J. Webb, "It is Well that Ye are Cast Out: Alma 32 and Eden," in Adam Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2011), 43-56;

D. Bokovoy, "In Principio Creavit Deus: The Theological Use of Creation Imagery in the Book of Mormon," paper delivered Sept 20, 2012, at annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT) at USU in Logan, Utah.

D. Bokovoy, "Temple Imagery in the Book of Mormon," BYU Education Week lectures, Aug 16 - 19, 2011.

D. Butler, Plain and Precious Things: The Temple Religion of the Book of Mormon (eBook, 2012).

J. Welch, “Toward an Understanding of the Sermon as a Temple Text,” in J. Welch, Sermon at the Temple Temple & Sermon on the Mount (FARMS, 1999).

J. Welch, "Seeing 3 Nephi as the Holy of Holies of the Book of Mormon," in A. Skinner & G. Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture (BYU Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2012), 1-33.

J. Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-63.

N. Rappleye, “Nephi the Good: A Commentary on 1 Nephi 1:1-3,” MormonInterpreter Blog, Jan 3, 2014, online at  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-the-good-a-commentary-on-1-nephi-11-3/#more-4490 , observing that Nephi only began his record after building a temple (II Ne 5:16,28-30).

J. Lindsay, “Temple Blindness,” online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/05/15/temple-blindness/ .

J. Lindsay, “Ancient Temple Themes in the Book of Mormon,” FAIRBLOG, Dec 26, 2013, online at http://www.fairblog.org/2013/12/26/ancient-temple-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon/  , also posted on Mormanity.blogspot.com, Dec 20, 2013, online at http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-temple-themes-in-book-of-mormon.html .

J. Lindsay, “The Temple in the Book of Mormon,” The Nauvoo Times, Dec 20, 2013, online at http://www.nauvootimes.com/cgi-bin/nauvoo_column.pl?number=101961&author=jeff-lindsay .

J. Lindsay, “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies,” FARMS Occasional Papers, no. 2 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001), 28-30.

J. Lindsay, “A Temple Gone Dark: An Important New Slant on the Themes of Nephi’s Vision and Lehi’s Dream.”

K. Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. by J. Welch, D. Seely, and J. Seely (Provo: Maxwell Institute, 2004), 449-522..

J. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 466,469.

M. Barker, “Beyond the Veil.” 

[VideoGameJunkie]

zionslight, did those men actually start to claim you as their spiritual wife in their minds? I had no idea we could do that with women. I claim Natalie Portman! Kidding kidding!

[USU78]

D&C 132 is not just as valid of a scripture as Jacob 2.  The Book of Mormon is from the Lord directly, read the beginning of D&C 132, they do not know when or where it came from.  You will not find this in any of Joseph Smith's revelations.  Isaac did not have more than one wife, David did more to offend to Lord than just kill Uriah, Emma was an elect lady and not to be damned. This came years after Joseph Smith and is not attributed to him.

 

The Doctrine and Covenants went through much changes.  The brethren added, took away, this has always been a controversial subject and has led people away from the church who have seen the changed in a lot of the D&C.

 

Jacob 2 spells it out in totality.  The Lord is establishing a righteous branch.  He commands the men to only have one wife, and that they err in justifying as the brethren later did in introduced polygamy, by the writings of old.

 

How can we keep on saying Joseph Smith's own words do not matter.  His revelations have come out, every single one is there EXCEPT D&C C 132, who it was said was given mainly from William Clayton, a polygamist.

 

The Lord is the author of the Book of Mormon, the men were the authors of the other.  Joseph turned much of this over to others to write his words.  These are not his words, and is filled with much error, there are some good things in there, but not most of it saying that the men could sin and still be saved. It is in complete contrast with Joseph Smith's words and the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

 

Jacob Scripture's provenance:  G-d -> Jacob -> Mormon -> Moroni -> JSJr -> Us

Section 132's provenance:  G-d -> JSJr -> Us

 

How is that again that Jacob trumps JSJr?

[mormonnewb]

Funny, no I have been a member all my life.  I went to the temple every week for two years for personal reasons concerning my husband who committed adultery, so I know how it feels, personally and I learned how the Lord felt about the men that do this to their wives.  But during this, I still absolutely believed Joseph Smith was the originator of polygamy.

 

I even had a man who had a death experience speak to me.  He was shown the table of the Lord, he had an experience like Sarah Monet, Lance Richardson, "Spencer" in Visions of Glory, etc.  He was a rancher and dairy farmer and "died" of cancer.  He made a covenant with the angel with him that nothing else might die for him to live, and was shown about the Word of Wisdom and meat.  I also ate lots of meat at this time, so no, i did not make this up.  Personally, he told me and others throughout his life that he met Joseph Smith and Emma, and that Joseph told him that he never had sexual relations outside of Emma.

 

At this time I did not care about that, I did care about my lack of care toward God's creations and my health, and knew that what he experienced was real and I better start to study the scriptures about my meat eating, and my health.  I did not think about the other.

 

I went through a divorce, and went through a startling discovery that certain men started to "claim" me as their spiritual wife.  It was how I started to learn the language of the Lord, the "beginning to wax in iniquity". Because I was sought after, no joke, and there were a handful of good LDS men, some with wives, others without that knew I was their wife, and that this had happened before.

 

It could not all be true, and that is when I was led down this path.  I am a researcher, I made a covenant years ago, when my children were young that I would "waste and wear away my life to bring to light hidden things of darkness", not realizing that the average member could not show you a conspiracy to save their lives, literally, which took me down the path to really understand the scriptures and things coming.

 

I kept finding one thing that bothered me.  On sites, in books it would talk about Joseph being an "enigma" that he spoke one thing and supposedly lived another.  They I learned about plainness, period.  In a nutshell.  I came to study and find out, yes, according to evidence, DNA evidence the Book of Mormon was more than just words, and that Joseph Smith had no other descendants other than with Emma.  This was startling, This was also years ago.

 

The Lord knew my heart and what I went through, gave me an advantage... to some of you men, it may not be the case for you are not sharing your bed with another man, would be a different story. And the Lord is no respector of persons.  It caused SO much grief, more than you know unless you do read the 19th wife, other accounts, it is horrifying.

 

Then someone will say, well done right, then you don't get this.  The Lord says it can not be done right here.  The history of our church with this, with Blacks and the Priesthood, and other mistakes is case in point.  Also the Lord's warning to us all through the scriptures, that we will be thinking we are great, building up our church's when we are debased and all is taken because we have become so part of the world, with all His truths, and have not received the higher priesthood spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

 

Back to me going to the temple, I did not know this but the Lord does answer real intent.  Sometime I may share what happened that gave me cause to believe that the Lord DOES want us to live these higher principles, which is not debasing ourselves, but living to see Him, this is the Doctrine, Christ, that He is now appearing to people, that we have a job to do, that we must have a tipping point to establish Zion, or we will be like those in Joseph's time.  

 

The D&C opens that we have changed His ordinances, it is also a book of warning, and instructions, and condemning us for not living the truths, seeing Christ, and that it is because of our vanity and our unbelief.

 

I went to Nauvoo.  And I did not even know what the RLDS church was until AFTER I knew the doctrine of polygamy was wrong, and then I was led to understand why this church existed at the beginning.  We are so prideful thinking we had all the knowledge and messed up, some of these original people that stayed in Nauvoo, and over there was the Lord's plan to bring us back, it certainly is not Salt Lake City.  We had to scatter, to gather.

 

Hope that makes me a little more personable.

 

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious as to why zionslight's view isn't considered the "faithful" view about polygamy.

 

As I understand it, JS NEVER publicly admitted to practicing polygamy (in whatever form that took for him).  He went to his grave PUBLICLY denouncing the practice.  After his death, people came forward to claim just the opposite.  From a faith-based perspective, it would seem that faithful members would give more credence to JS' first person declarations.

 

For example, imagine that, if after JS' death, several people came forth and said that JS had practiced and taught THEM the validity of infant christenings.  And despite JS' explicit teachings that baptism must be by immersion for those who've reached the age of accountability, he (and the Lord) actually believed otherwise and that from then on, the people should do likewise.  It seems that those most "loyal" to JS would reject this new teaching.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that it's impossible to conclude that JS was secretly practicing polygamy.  People very often preach one thing and say another.  And given my warped view of what a "true" prophet is really like (a flawed human being), I'm inclined to believe such charges of hypocrisy.  But I'm not exactly the exemplar of the "faithful Mormon."  If I was, it would seem to me that I'd be inclined to give JS the benefit of the doubt that he was actually being truthful with his followers when he denied polygamy.

 

What am I missing here?

[zionslight]

Joseph did not write D&C 132, it is the only revelation left out, that is what I am trying to say.  It was "found" years later, can not be substantiated, and is missing even from the revelations we have that just came out.  Joseph Smith's Revelations.

 

It was a compilation given later.  It replaced D&C 101 which stated the opposite and was the second witness of Jacob 2, by Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

What then do you do with strong claims that the Book of Mormon culture had the endowment from beginning to end?  And was Father Lehi a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood?  Nephi?

 

J. Webb, "It is Well that Ye are Cast Out: Alma 32 and Eden," in Adam Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2011), 43-56;

D. Bokovoy, "In Principio Creavit Deus: The Theological Use of Creation Imagery in the Book of Mormon," paper delivered Sept 20, 2012, at annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT) at USU in Logan, Utah.

D. Bokovoy, "Temple Imagery in the Book of Mormon," BYU Education Week lectures, Aug 16 - 19, 2011.

D. Butler, Plain and Precious Things: The Temple Religion of the Book of Mormon (eBook, 2012).

J. Welch, “Toward an Understanding of the Sermon as a Temple Text,” in J. Welch, Sermon at the Temple Temple & Sermon on the Mount (FARMS, 1999).

J. Welch, "Seeing 3 Nephi as the Holy of Holies of the Book of Mormon," in A. Skinner & G. Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture (BYU Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2012), 1-33.

J. Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-63.

N. Rappleye, “Nephi the Good: A Commentary on 1 Nephi 1:1-3,” MormonInterpreter Blog, Jan 3, 2014, online at  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-the-good-a-commentary-on-1-nephi-11-3/#more-4490 , observing that Nephi only began his record after building a temple (II Ne 5:16,28-30).

J. Lindsay, “Temple Blindness,” online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/05/15/temple-blindness/ .

J. Lindsay, “Ancient Temple Themes in the Book of Mormon,” FAIRBLOG, Dec 26, 2013, online at http://www.fairblog.org/2013/12/26/ancient-temple-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon/  , also posted on Mormanity.blogspot.com, Dec 20, 2013, online at http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-temple-themes-in-book-of-mormon.html .

J. Lindsay, “The Temple in the Book of Mormon,” The Nauvoo Times, Dec 20, 2013, online at http://www.nauvootimes.com/cgi-bin/nauvoo_column.pl?number=101961&author=jeff-lindsay .

J. Lindsay, “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies,” FARMS Occasional Papers, no. 2 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001), 28-30.

J. Lindsay, “A Temple Gone Dark: An Important New Slant on the Themes of Nephi’s Vision and Lehi’s Dream.”

K. Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. by J. Welch, D. Seely, and J. Seely (Provo: Maxwell Institute, 2004), 449-522..

J. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 466,469.

M. Barker, “Beyond the Veil.” 

 

Now you know I'm no scholar of ancient cultures etc.  Never claimed to be.

All I know for sure is that sometimes the BOM society functioned under the law of Moses and a mosaic temple and sometimes they had the Melchezidek ordinances with the temple.

As for which were which, that's up to the scholars to analyze.  But Jacob said what he said in the verse I quoted.  They were living the Law of Moses, not the higher laws.

[zionslight]

What Mormonnewb wrote is my truth, and thank you.  I did not want to get into a fight either, this is part of the point here, if we are all arguing about who was right, and who said what etc, then imagine what it was like then.

 

You really can find more people who said Joseph Smith taught them monogamy and that this church was headed for a big wake up call, then those who did practice it and turned on Joseph.

 

I don't even want to be right.  I want to point out that Joseph said that the Lord told Him in D&C 49 that a man was to have one wife, Joseph fought court battle after court battle, and no I am not trying to promote an RLDS site, it is just one source that I have really valued as it has more of the original depositions.  It is restorationbookstore.com and all the articles are open, not in book form.

 

It made things more clear to me, but most of my studying was done by LDS authors who seemed to be quoting each other, and the same rhetoric and never quoted Joseph Smith or Emma, or the Lord for that matter, and it was all confusing until I went back to the Lord's words.  Christ confounded those around Him, and expounded, and He does that in these scriptures.

 

Thank you, I don't feel like leaving just when I got started, like before, for I have had enough contending to last a lifetime, and it was why I refused to do so and could understand Joseph in court.  I believe in the right of a person to state their own witness, and Joseph's and Hyrum's were always contradictory, so when the evidence came out that DNA showed not one descendant who has come forth is Joseph's descendant, it was like "huh" what in the world?  It has led me to understand all that I don't understand.

 

I would like to post some other things on Isaiah, or other topics, but I am certainly so happy to add anything I can, as Joseph Smith's name will one day be vindicated.  I did not know that his sons went to Utah to speak to them about their father, and the treatment they received was unconscionable as some people have had this treatment by leaders. 

 

It is all good, it makes the Lord the author and the finisher of all things.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious as to why zionslight's view isn't considered the "faithful" view about polygamy.

 

As I understand it, JS NEVER publicly admitted to practicing polygamy (in whatever form that took for him).  He went to his grave PUBLICLY denouncing the practice.  After his death, people came forward to claim just the opposite.  From a faith-based perspective, it would seem that faithful members would give more credence to JS' first person declarations.

 

For example, imagine that, if after JS' death, several people came forth and said that JS had practiced and taught THEM the validity of infant christenings.  And despite JS' explicit teachings that baptism must be by immersion for those who've reached the age of accountability, he (and the Lord) actually believed otherwise and that from then on, the people should do likewise.  It seems that those most "loyal" to JS would reject this new teaching.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that it's impossible to conclude that JS was secretly practicing polygamy.  People very often preach one thing and say another.  And given my warped view of what a "true" prophet is really like (a flawed human being), I'm inclined to believe such charges of hypocrisy.  But I'm not exactly the exemplar of the "faithful Mormon."  If I was, it would seem to me that I'd be inclined to give JS the benefit of the doubt that he was actually being truthful with his followers when he denied polygamy.

 

What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that if Joseph was, in fact, innocent and the teaching was got up by other leaders in his name, because they are so caught up in the "one true church and it's my church" concept they would have to face the uncomfortable idea that maybe Joseph III was actually his father's successor and all that entails.

Me? Meh. The true church was restored 1830, we are all parts of it, men make mistakes, let's move on, unite our efforts, build Zion, and let the LORD worry about correcting our errors when He sees fit.

[USU78]

Joseph did not write D&C 132, it is the only revelation left out, that is what I am trying to say.  It was "found" years later, can not be substantiated, and is missing even from the revelations we have that just came out.  Joseph Smith's Revelations.

 

It was a compilation given later.  It replaced D&C 101 which stated the opposite and was the second witness of Jacob 2, by Joseph Smith.

 

Hyrum's widow was a liar, then.

 

I see.

 

Makes perfect sense now.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What Mormonnewb wrote is my truth, and thank you.  I did not want to get into a fight either, this is part of the point here, if we are all arguing about who was right, and who said what etc, then imagine what it was like then.

 

You really can find more people who said Joseph Smith taught them monogamy and that this church was headed for a big wake up call, then those who did practice it and turned on Joseph.

 

I don't even want to be right.  I want to point out that Joseph said that the Lord told Him in D&C 49 that a man was to have one wife, Joseph fought court battle after court battle, and no I am not trying to promote an RLDS site, it is just one source that I have really valued as it has more of the original depositions.  It is restorationbookstore.com and all the articles are open, not in book form.

 

It made things more clear to me, but most of my studying was done by LDS authors who seemed to be quoting each other, and the same rhetoric and never quoted Joseph Smith or Emma, or the Lord for that matter, and it was all confusing until I went back to the Lord's words.  Christ confounded those around Him, and expounded, and He does that in these scriptures.

 

Thank you, I don't feel like leaving just when I got started, like before, for I have had enough contending to last a lifetime, and it was why I refused to do so and could understand Joseph in court.  I believe in the right of a person to state their own witness, and Joseph's and Hyrum's were always contradictory, so when the evidence came out that DNA showed not one descendant who has come forth is Joseph's descendant, it was like "huh" what in the world?  It has led me to understand all that I don't understand.

 

I would like to post some other things on Isaiah, or other topics, but I am certainly so happy to add anything I can, as Joseph Smith's name will one day be vindicated.  I did not know that his sons went to Utah to speak to them about their father, and the treatment they received was unconscionable as some people have had this treatment by leaders. 

 

It is all good, it makes the Lord the author and the finisher of all things.

I would move on to other things. The polygamy debate can get you bogged down in unfruitful discussion. I learned that lesson from experience, so I rarely touch the subject anymore, not worth my time. 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Hyrum's widow was a liar, then.

 

I see.

 

Makes perfect sense now.

 

No worse than calling Emma a liar.

Can we all just move on already?

Edited September 4, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[JLHPROF]

I would move on to other things. The polygamy debate can get you bogged down in unfruitful discussion. I learned that lesson from experience, so I rarely touch the subject anymore, not worth my time. 

 

 

No worse than calling Emma a liar.

Can we all just move on already?

 

I can agree with this, but I just can't sit back and allow false history to be taught as fact.  There are too many people who believe it when that happens.

 

But as for convincing someone who deeply hates polygamy of the truth -  that it was given by God - well, that's not going to happen so why try.

[USU78]

 

No worse than calling Emma a liar.

Can we all just move on already?

 

You'll have to excuse me.

 

My direct ancestors are being called whores and whoremongers and seducers of young women, as well as liars.

 

I didn't start catcalling against Emma.

 

And I admire her a great deal, though I don't agree with everything she ever said or did.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The fact is that we are 150 years removed from the situation, with conflicting testimony of valiant people on both sides. None of knows beyond all certainty what occurred or didn't occur. 

150 years is too long, it is time to move on. We have been divided for too long and to let this continue to divide us is nonsense and non-productive. 

 

Edited September 4, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[ERayR]

The fact is that we are 150 years removed from the situation, with conflicting testimony of valiant people on both sides. None of knows beyond all certainty what occurred or didn't occur. 

150 years is too long, it is time to move on. We have been divided for too long and to let this continue to divide us is nonsense and non-productive. 

 

 

And it is totally irrelevant for us now.

[VideoGameJunkie]

If Joseph Smith didn't practice it, then why did Brigham Young practice it?

[JLHPROF]

If Joseph Smith didn't practice it, then why did Brigham Young practice it?

 

Oh, you hadn't heard?  Because rather than being a prophet of God and His mouthpiece on the earth Brigham is actually the devil incarnate - a racist, chauvinist, violent, greedy man who corrupted Joseph's Church for his own selfish needs...

 

Or so the current line of absolute bullcrap goes.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Well people are saying Joseph Smith didn't practice it, but acknowledge BY did. I believe they both practiced it and I'm ok with the practice since it was from God.

[mormonnewb]

Oh, you hadn't heard? Because rather than being a prophet of God and His mouthpiece on the earth Brigham is actually the devil incarnate - a racist, chauvinist, violent, greedy man who corrupted Joseph's Church for his own selfish needs...

Or so the current line of absolute bullcrap goes.

But doesn't the other line of thought (that polygamy was instituted by JS) lead to similar charges against JS?

By telling some people about polygamy but denying it with others, JS sowed massive confusion in the Church. His very own wife and children ended up choosing the "wrong" church, thereby cutting themselves off from the very priesthood authority that was restored through him.

And while some have argued that JS had good reasons to lie, there are ALWAYS good reasons to lie (because the lie leads to a better result than the truth). In fact, no one EVER lies when the truth suits their interests better.

It seems to me that a better course of action would be to handle things like we do currently. We don't lie to people about what goes on in the temple (at least, I don't). Now if someone makes an outrageous claim like they we have orgies in the temple (I actually heard this), I will correct them. On the other hand, if they actually know one of our "secrets," I will simply not answer the question. However, what I don't do is lie to them and say, "You heard what? No, we would NEVER do that."

However, that is what Team Polygamy is saying that JS did when they claim that JS started the practice of polygamy. As I see it, polygamy casts a negative light on either JS or BY since one of them was not telling the truth.

It just seems strange to me that the "faithful" position is to let JS take the fall. Is it because JS falsehoods are more understandable (to predict the saints) than BY's falsehoods (to wrongfully have extra wives)? Or is it that the evidence is so overwhelming that we have to begrudgingly admit that JS lied to many of the saints, whether we like it or not?

[Robert F. Smith]

zionslight, did those men actually start to claim you as their spiritual wife in their minds? I had no idea we could do that with women. I claim Natalie Portman! Kidding kidding!

Haven't you ever heard of "Name it and claim it"?

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I enjoy your posts.  I am not trying to bury this.  We can address this and Joseph Smith's son when he came to the same conclusion.  What  I was looking at was Joseph Smith's words, not these men.  They changed a lot of the history, and so the accounts are derived all from the same source, except Joseph Smith's mouth.

 

These men also believed in Blood Atonement and covering up for their leaders, and we suffered.  We can address this, if you want, I keep trying to lead this to a different direction, truly, I do not desire to be attacked in any way, but to expound on the Lord's words and how we suffered.  If Joseph did do this, then he died saying one thing and doing another, which some believed, I am not one of them after spending almost 7 years studying this.  It could not just be laid out in this thread, I read thousands and thousands of pages of documents journals, etc, Compton's book, Quinn's, the anti mormon literature, and then Joseph's words and the scriptures.  You can feel the difference between the Light and Dark.

 

Joseph says that his name will be known for good and bad.  It is hard, I know because some people say they got it directly form Joseph's mouth, but every time I look into their lives and journals, they are convicted of some kind of similar thing of speaking two different things, only Joseph spoke one and only one. The rest is hearsay.

 

I will go back to your posts,

 

And are you the Robert Smith that wrote the book?

You like dropping names, zionist, but it would be very helpful if you could name the book titles, and direct your comments in a more substantive direction.  You are still unable to specify where Richard Howard went wrong and what his motive was in claiming that Joseph taught and practiced polygyny.  You can't imagine why the RLDS First Presidency would agree with Howard. You claim only hearsay, but fail to specify what that only hearsay claim is based on.  Are there any professional historians (Mormon or non-Mormon) out there who agree with you?  I think not.  To what branch of the Reorganization do you truly belong?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Haha Robert Smith, I have not heard of "Name it and claim it." haha I'm even fine with being assigned a wife by God if it's by God.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I will just say that I trust every single one of our church's prophets since they will never lead the church astray. So I trust Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in whatever they do and support them, I was just curious what it is they were doing. I still support them and know they are mouthpieces of Heavenly Father.

[Alan]

I would move on to other things. The polygamy debate can get you bogged down in unfruitful discussion. I learned that lesson from experience, so I rarely touch the subject anymore, not worth my time. 

 

I know what you mean.

I settled the question in my mind several years ago. Like Zionslight, I studied the subject at length and came to the same conclusion she has. I don't promote my views but I do state them when the discussion goes that way.

I'm sure there must be something wrong with my computer because everytime it comes up on here and I state my belief that Joseph was not a polygamist, my keyboard must write something like "I hate you all" or "I hope your mother dies in a freak boating accident", judging by the venom and ill feeling that comes back at me.

Never mind, each to their own.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Alan